Most of your post sounded as if you are quite in favor of a modern NS system. Up and until the last line, I would have been inclined to think you understand a bit about private property entitlement.

Where, pray tell, do you come up with "anti-incentive tendencies"?

By 'anti-incentive tendancies' I am refering to the human mental complex that once most people become accustomed to being entitled to something, they then feel they should be entitled to something else and something else and something else and so on and so on.

Fractional reserves make it possible for banks to lend. Otherwise they could only lend the EXACT amounts of their deposits.

Interest rates would be MASSIVE in this event. How else can the bank lend and get compensated for potential risk? They would be much better off investing deposts in anything but individual lending. Let alone commercial lending

Fractional reserves make it possible for banks to lend. Otherwise they could only lend the EXACT amounts of their deposits.

Interest rates would be MASSIVE in this event. How else can the bank lend and get compensated for potential risk? They would be much better off investing deposts in anything but individual lending. Let alone commercial lending

I am afraid you are not seeing the "wholeness" of brotherhood...Nat'l Socialism...

Fractional reserves make it possible for banks to lend. Otherwise they could only lend the EXACT amounts of their deposits.

Interest rates would be MASSIVE in this event. How else can the bank lend and get compensated for potential risk? They would be much better off investing deposts in anything but individual lending. Let alone commercial lending

That is why economy keeps coming to the forefront in this discussion. Fractional reserve interest is a jewish phenomena and purely capitalist. It allows for money to be made on speculation. Money to be made on money itself.

This is how I understand NS. On a philosophic level it has its roots in Nietzsche's response to the 'pessimism' of Schopenhauer. Obviously there were scientific (Darwinian, eugenic, political), artistic, occult, military and other tendencies as well as the philosophical ones but they were aware of each other. Schopenhauer anticipated Darwin philosophically and Nietzsche too certainly had them all in mind.

Schopenhauer taught that all life is characterized by a meaningless, purposeless, painful and futile struggle to survive and to prosper. Animals live by eating each other, which is not very nice! and time and death inevitably bring all our efforts to nought. He recommended a pleasant and contemplative life of art, music and philosophy.

Nietzsche preached the 'will to power' in response, that yes life is a competitive struggle, rests on principles that are not very nice and is meaningless and ultimately futile but you either have the will to live and to prosper and you are willing (determined) to do what that requires or you are fit only to be a slave or to disappear. So we must have natural and healthy (manly) values that promote life and strength rather than 'slave' values that weaken us, like pacifism or misplaced 'charity'. Humanity will either find these values and will progress to the overman, the next stage in human evolution or will become the self-righteous and mediocre 'last man' who is capable of nothing further and degenerates into a lower type. (As we see today?)

Nazism preaches the will of the higher race to live, conquer, prosper and progress, a 'triumph of the will'. It functions perfectly well as a communal response to the existential condition described by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and is thus eminently 'moral'.

From Mein Kampf, volume I, chapter 11.

Quote:

The pacifist-humanitarian idea may indeed become an excellent one when the most superior type of manhood will have succeeded in subjugating the world to such an extent that this type is then sole master of the earth. This idea could have an injurious effect only in the measure according to which its application would become difficult and finally impossible. So, first of all, the fight and then pacifism. If the case were different it would mean that mankind has already passed the zenith of its development, and accordingly the end would not be the supremacy of some moral ideal but degeneration into barbarism and consequent chaos. [...]

He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.

Such a saying may sound hard; but, after all, that is how the matter really stands. Yet far harder is the lot of him who believes that he can overcome Nature and thus in reality insults her. Distress, misery, and disease are her rejoinders.

Whoever ignores or despises the laws of race really deprives himself of the happiness to which he believes he can attain. For he places an obstacle in the victorious path of the superior race and, by so doing, he interferes with a prerequisite condition of all human progress. Loaded with the burden of humanitarian sentiment, he falls back to the level of those who are unable to raise themselves in the scale of being.